Gemara in קידושין דף מ\"ב, עמוד א'. The Gemara here is the sugya of shlichut. The Gemara goes in the sugya of where how do we know שלוחו של אדם כמותו. Since the Mishnah said that you're allowed to be מקדש אשה, you could do it yourself, or you can send a shaliach. And other things you could do through a shaliach. So the Gemara said, where do we know that from? So it brings the different pesukim. Pasuk by Gittin, a pasuk by Kiddushin, a pasuk by terumah, by kadashim, all kinds of things. Comes the Gemara and the Gemara asks a שאלה, אלא הא דאמר רב גידל אמר רב, רב גידל said in the name of רב, מניין ששלוחו של אדם כמותו, so the pasuk he has, the Gemara is going to ask why didn't we bring from that pasuk a re'ayah, when we why do we need all the other pesukim? What's the other pasuk we find? שנאמר it says, ונשיא אחד נשיא אחד ממטה. It's a pasuk talking about the חלוקת הארץ, when they divided Eretz Yisrael, so it says, the nasi of each shevet, he was the one that took care of the division, and he was the one that did it for the whole shevet. And the question is, each person has to make a kinyan himself. If the nasi did it, how did it work for the people? That's the re'ayah. תיפוק ליה שליחות מהכא. So we see from here that you need a shlichut. That if somebody does something for you, it's okay, it's like you did it yourself. So the one answers, that's because it's a zechut to you. So what isn't a zechut, that's what he's doing here? What What? פרט סמכות. מאי שנא? No no, you're you're saying something, but פרט סמכות. So the Gemara says, וכי סברת, do you really think דהא שליחות הוא? Do you think over there was shelichut? והקטנים לאו בני שליחות נינהו. Some of the people that were getting a share in Eretz Yisrael were קטנים, and קטנים can't make a שליח. How could you say that the נשיא the way he was able to do it for everybody, because they made him into a שליח, קטנים can't make a שליח. So this can't be shelichut. Can't him only get into the back? But no, but there were קטנים that they that if they were the ones that came into Eretz Yisrael, they would get it. The little 3 year old walked across Yeah yeah yeah, but it's not for here, this not the sugya here, but yeah yeah, they got it. So the Gemara says okay, so from here we cannot know shelichut, this is not shelichut. So what is it? So how did the נשיא work for them? How it was it possible for the נשיא to take care and קונה or make everything for the whole for all the people, when they have to do it themselves? And it And it can't be because of shelichut. אלא the Gemara says, כי הא דרבא בר רב הונא. What was there is like Rava bar Rav Huna said, דאמר רבא בר רב הונא, אמר רב גידל, אמר רב, מניין שזוכין לאדם שלא בפניו. So now we get it. How do we know that you could be zocheh for somebody, that's a זכות, שלא בפניו. That means, and this is a new thing, it's called zechiyah, we call it זכיה,

זכין לאדם שלא בפניו, that you could be zocheh for somebody, even if he doesn't know about it. למשל, If that's what, say the things about him? No no. זכות זכין is good. That means למשל like this, Reuven wants to give Shimon a מתנה. Let's say he wants to give something that a good thing, he's give money. Right. And Shimon happens to be out of town, and he wants him to get it now. So there's a דין, Reuven could come over to another person, to Levi, and say here, here's the money. Pick it up on behalf of Shimon, and you are zocheh for Shimon, and that's called זכין לאדם שלא בפניו. And that's called zechiyah. And that's a din, if something is good for you, you could do it שלא בפניו, even not in front of him, even if they he's not here, and he doesn't even know about it. And that what this case was. The case here that the נשיא was able to do it is from a different גדר, it's from a different angle, it's from from זכיה. And the ראיה that there is זכיה שנאמר נשיא אחד נשיא אחד. Comes the Gemara, we have to listen to every part of the Gemara here, because it's the whole המשך of the ענין is pushed totally into this. The same thing is picking something up or finding something for somebody without their Yeah yeah, there also we have a The Gemara brings זכיה also. Then the Gemara continue, ותסברא דזכות היא? What do you think, if there was a זכות, when they got the place for every person of the of שבט, he got different his share, it's a זכות? חוב נמי איכא. This sometimes could be something bad too, דאיכא דניחא ליה בהר ולא ניחא ליה בבקעה. One guy you gave him a share in a mountain, he doesn't like a mountain, likes a valley. איכא דניחא ליה בבקעה ולא ניחא ליה בהר. He likes a valley uh, so there is some not not not all it's not only good here. So how can you say this is a din of זכות? So the Gemara says, ואלא כי דרבא בר רב הונא דאמר רב הונא אמר רב גידל אמר רב, another thing, מניין ליתומים שבאו לחלוק בנכסי אביהן, So how do you know that יתומים came to divide, יתומים means a person died and left קטנים children, and normally if you'd have adults who are left over, they divide the ירושה, but here they're children, so how do you know שב\"ד מעמידין להם אפוטרופוס, that ב\"ד will appoint a guardian to do this for them, לחוב ולזכות. For bad and for good. So the Gemara, ולחוב? Why why would they give a a an authority, a כח to an אפוטרופוס to do something bad for the children? ניי, he says, a חוב על מנת לזכות. It's טאקע בעיקר good, because when they divide, he's trying to be there, the אפוטרופוס is going to look out for the welfare of each one. But sometimes what he'll choose for this guy won't be so good, because the guy really doesn't, the kid doesn't like it. And the kid'll grow up, say, \"Hey, you got me this, I don't like this part.\" You still could do it. And the ראיה is נשיא אחד נשיא אחד מטה תקחו. So what we read from here, ha? That the נשיא from the שבט took for everyone, even though there was some חוב there, because some people might not have liked the share they got, a נשיא could do it. So this is the המשך of the Gemara. So again, it's noge'a the whole המשך. First, the Gemara thought that this פסוק נשיא אחד teaches us the din of שליחות. That a Nasi could do it for them. And the Gemara pointed out it can't be שליחות, because some of the people were קטנים, קטנים can't make a שליח. So therefore, the Gemara said, what is it? It's זכיה. Then the Gemara, is it a זכות? It's not always a זכות. And the Gemara answered, no, we have a ראיה that an אפוטרופוס, בית דין could put up an אפוטרופוס even if it's not a hundred percent good, but it's still called good. B'meila you could do it. And the same thing with the Nasi, even though there could have been some people didn't like it, still good. This is the Gemara here. And you learned whatever is an אפוטרופוס. This is a whole בית דין, at least we'll learn of this. We learned אפוטרופוס later in פרק הניזקין, okay, but it's the same thing as an אפוטרופוס. Now, a guardian, all right. This Gemara, this whole sugya that you have here is a יסוד. Around here, a big, gigantic machloket in the ראשונים. There's a big machloket whether זכיה מטעם שליחות or not. This whole din of זכין לאדם שלא בפניו, that you could be זוכה for somebody even if he didn't make you into a שליח, didn't ask you to do it, if it's a זכות.

So the opinion of Rashi, and Tosafos, and the Rosh, and the Ran is that the whole concept of זכיה comes from שליחות. As Rashi puts it, Rashi puts it different places, it says like this, why takeh could zechiyah work? How could it be I want to give something to him, he doesn't even know about it, I give it to him, he picks it up, and he's zocheh? How on earth is he? Milah if you asked him to do it, he never asked, he don't even know about it. How is he, how does it become his? So Rashi says anan sahadi, we are sure that had he known that this is happening, he would have made him into a shaliach. So basically what's happening is that he's takeh a shaliach. The way it works is that the middleman, the one that's zocheh, is actually a shaliach of the one he's zocheh for. Ai, he never appointed him? Ke'ilu he appointed him, because we're so sure, anan sahadi. Huh? Uh-oh, that's going to be the whole point here. So this is the opinion of many of the Rishonim. Again, that the whole concept of zechiyah, how does this concept of זכין לאדם שלא בפניו work, it's based on the din shlichut. Because you could make a shaliach, so here we have a logical sevara that for sure he would make a shaliach. Ai, he didn't say it? And there are those that hold, the Rambam, the Rashba, the Ritva, it's not true. Zechiyah is a separate din. Nothing to do with shlichut. There's a din of shlichut that you could make a person a שליח, שלוחו של אדם כמותו, and then there's another din of זכין לאדם שלא בפניו, that you could be zocheh for somebody. Where do we know the din of זכין לאדם שלא בפניו? From this pasuk. And nothing to do with shaliach, it's not because we assume that probably this man would have made you into a shaliach, b'meila you become... it's a whole other shtikel. The Torah was mechadesh a דין, נשיא אחד, we see that zechiyah is a din that you'll be zocheh. That's what they hold. It's all based, besides this Gemara, it's based on another Gemara.

The Gemara in Bava Metzia דף ע״א עמוד ב׳. The Gemara in Bava Metzia says אף על פי שאין שליחות לקטן, יש זכיה לקטן. Because Lichorah, if you're going to say that the whole concept of zechiyah is because the one that's zocheh is like a shaliach to the guy who made him, so you couldn't be zocheh for a katan! Because just like a katan can't make you a shaliach, so how could you be zocheh for him when the whole idea of zocheh is because you're becoming his shaliach? He can't make it! So how in the world does the Gemara say in Bava Metzia that a katan, even though he has no shlichut, a katan cannot make a shaliach, but you could be zocheh for the katan? If the whole zechiyah is because of shlichut, how could you be zocheh for the katan, which means that you're becoming his shaliach, when he can't make, he can't have a shaliach? But the Gemara says that you could. Now, in that Gemara, there are two girsa'ot. There's one girsa in the Gemara: קטן אף על פי שאין לו שליחות, אית ליה זכיה. He has zechiyah. There's another girsa: קטן אף על פי שאין לו שליחות, אית ליה זכיה מדרבנן. That the רבנן gave him a special, the רבנן felt that this, they gave him a din that you could be zocheh for him. Now this depends: If you hold that your girsa is in the Gemara without the word מדרבנן, that means that we're saying even מדאורייתא, a קטן doesn't can't make a שליח, but you could be זוכה for him. How is that possible? If זכייה is מטעם שליחות, this can't be. So, is a re'ayah from that Gemara that that, not that, Ramban, that זכייה is not connected with שליחות. So, דאורייתא a שליח he can't make a זכייה. The ones that hold זכייה is מטעם שליחות hold that a קטן cannot make, so their גירסא is that a קטן cannot have שליחות. You cannot be זוכה for a קטן. But the רבנן made so there is said the גירסא is with מדרבנן. Why can't we say, like a lot of times we say, you're right, a child cannot have שליחות, cannot be involved in שליחות? Cannot make a שליח. But in this particular case, the Torah says he can, and how do you do it? Through זכייה. So that that's make meaning that it's not שליחות. It's it still has what are we We'll see. We'll see. We'll see. But I I know what you're saying. Let's see. We'll get we'll get to the the whole picture. When do you use זכייה that can't use שליחות? If a guy never made you. Huh? A guy never made you a שליח. That's the she'eilah, if a guy When did you use זכייה that can't use שליחות? When could you use like lemashel in this case, like a קטן. Only a קטן. Right, that's the chiddush would be. Why can't it be Because see, שליחות, בכלל, you can make a bad you can make a שליח to do something bad, like you could be a מתנה טובה. But not But זכייה, no. זכייה is only for good. Maybe it's a מתנה. Only that's all it is. What a מתנה? What a מתנה? What do you mean? If you send somebody Take this for that boy, for that young man. So you give him you give him a matanah. Whom? That guy? But how does the guy koneh it? How does the kid kid koneh it? It's a special din. No. So you're saying it's a special din of zechiya! Right! Right! You get it? If it's a good thing, there's no she'eilah. If it's a bad thing, there is a she'eilah. That's a special din, we know zechiya for this. For sure. How else could it be? Only for a child. You can, but not for a child, to make a din in shelichut. The shelichut What do you mean make? It's just what the Torah says. You can make an automatic shelichut, if it's good. But, I mean, how is it an automatic shelichut? Because because זכייה מטעם שליחות. But if zechiya is not shelichut, if the guy didn't make you as a shaliach, how are you a shaliach? No, but nevertheless, we say it's זכייה מטעם שליחות. The chiddush and the according to this sevara of זכייה מטעם שליחות, the whole chiddush of zechiya is that even in a case where he didn't make you a shaliach, it's ke'ilu he made you a shaliach. That's what we have. Because if you wouldn't say this sevara, unless you make the guy into a shaliach, it doesn't work. So there's a special din that from shelichut, we learn out with the שכל אנן סהדי, we are sure that he wants to make him a shaliach. Why isn't apotropos? No, no, that's Why is apotropos different from this? So what is the difference? So what does he take the sentence right now? We'll see that. Let me I didn't get back to the Gemara, yet. This is a really not a complicated, but it's great this sevara sugya. So you have like this, so if you hold zechiya is because of shelichut, then just like a a a katan cannot make a shaliach, you cannot be zocheh for the katan. Ai, the Gemara says שליחות you can't, a קטן, but זכייה, yeah? You must be גורס מדרבנן. If you hold that זכייה is a separate דין, so שליחות we know a קטן can't make a שליח. But who says you can't be זוכה? So you could. So you don't have to say the Gemara is מדרבנן only. So your גירסא in the Gemara, a זכייה a a קטן אף על פי שאין שליחות, יש לו זכייה. This Gemara here is another place where we have the whole confusion.

The Ran himself, who is the one that we said before holds זכייה is מטעם שליחות, says that from this Gemara seems to so show clearly that זכייה is not מטעם שליחות. Why? Let's go through the Gemara. That's why I said you have to listen to the same Gemara. The Gemara brings the פסוק נשיא אחד, that the נשיא took care of the חלוקה of the division of Eretz Yisrael. And the Gemara says, so let's learn, well how did he do it? How could he be a שליח? Comes the Gemara, the Gemara says, can't be שליחות, because there were קטנים, קטנים there. So therefore what is it? זכייה. What did we gain? If זכייה is מטעם שליחות, it's the same problem you have, that you can't be שליחות because of קטנים, you can't have a זכייה because of Same question, the same what's the פשט? So לכאורה, I have a ראיה from the גמרא that זכייה is not מטעם שליחות. So the Ran is asking on himself, לכאורה, I have a ראיה. So the Ran says, I have the other Gemara, where the Gemara says clearly that זכייה, in the Gemara Bava Metzia, that זכייה, a קטן doesn't have שליחות, but he has זכייה מדרבנן, his girsa, a siman that מדאורייתא, he taken don't. A siman that מדאורייתא, זכייה is מטעם שליחות. איי, what do we do with this Gemara? So he says you don't understand the pshat in the Gemara. This is not even the pshat. Again, remember what how the seder is. After the Gemara said it's not שליחות, it's זכייה, then the Gemara asks, is it זכייה? But there's not a not's not a 100% זכות. There's partially here, maybe a guy didn't like the share, so it's not זכות. So the Gemara answers that it doesn't matter, because we learned out a din from אפוטרופוס that you could, even if חוב. So he says that So what is it? A special din of אפוטרופוס. By אפוטרופוס there's a special din we learn out that he could do it, but it's not זכיה. So when the Gemara in the beginning thought this is פארבונדן with connected to זכיה, at that point the Gemara take thought זכיה is not מטעם שליחות. But at the end, when the גמרא שלאָגט אָפּ and said this is not zechiyah, so what do we learn out from the pasuk נשיא? It's a new din. Nothing to do with farkert, this is not zechiyah. Because the Gemara we learn now if it would be zechiyah, if it's a little bit of חוב, there is no din of zechiyah. How come here it works? So the Gemara comes with a chidush, it's a new din. So he says like this: ein hachi nami from the beginning of the Gemara, which is a havah amina that this is zechiyah, the Gemara takeh thought in the havah amina that zechiyah is not shlichut. But it comes to the end where the Gemara opgeshlagn and the Gemara says that this is not zechiyah. So not zechiyah, so now we could change and say zechiyah is מטעם שליחות. So if we Oh, by אפוטרופוס a special din. If you hold that zechiyah is not מטעם שליחות, you have you can learn you learn peshat in the Gemara differently. You learn like this: The Gemara asks this is shlichut, how can you say shlichut on? So we answer it's zechiyah, and zechiyah we don't care about קטן. And we remain with that, that this is zechiyah. Ela mai, the Gemara asks a side question: How can you say it's zechiyah when there's a problem? So the Gemara answers no problem, but the bottom line remains that this is zechiyah, and we're telling you that you thought zechiyah is only if it's a hundred percent good, if it's 90% is also zechiyah. So we remain with zechiyah. And this pasuk's זכיה. Are there קטנים there? Who cares? If זכיה is not מטעם שליחות, who cares? But the Ran says, \"But I'm learning זכיה is מטעם שליחות. So I'm not learning like that. I'm saying that the Gemara first thought takeh that it's זכיה, and זכיה works by קטן because we thought זכיה is without שליחות. Comes the Gemara and says this is not זכיה. It can't be זכיה because there is a חוב there. So what is it? Oh, it's a new דין. It's a דין of אפוטרופוס.\" So the fact that over there קטנים were could make the נשיא do it, it's not זכיה, because the מסקנא is that by זכיה קטנים will not work. Because the מסקנא when we changed that this is not זכיה, זכיה is not without שליחות. This is how the Ran learns. So it comes out that if you learn זכיה is מטעם שליחות, that's how you have to learn pshat in the Gemara here. That the מסקנא of the Gemara is that this is not זכיה, because if this would remain the end being זכיה, we've got a big problem. There were קטנים there, and קטנים do not work by זכיה, because זכיה is שליחות. They don't work by שליחות, they don't work by זכיה either. So we have to learn, if you learn זכיה without שליחות, you have to learn like the Ran learns. Fine. So we have a machloket between the Ran and the others, how is the pshat of this Gemara. Our problem is Rashi. Yeah. Special din, exactly. Yeah, that's that's the Ran. No, it's not a דין זכיה. It's just yes, but it's it doesn't fall in the category of zechiyah of regular case of זכין לאדם שלא בפניו. You hear? Different din. But the other problem is Rashi. We said that Rashi learns זכיה מטעם שליחות, like the Ran. So if Rashi learns like that, how would you learn the end of the Gemara? That when the Gemara asks this is can't be shlichut, it was ketanim, so it's zechiyah, then the Gemara asks, \"But this is zechiyah, but it was chov?\" And the Gemara answers אפוטרופוס, how would you have to learn? Like the Ran, that the Gemara changed their mind. It's not zechiyah anymore. It's not zechiyah. Let's look at Rashi. Rashi doesn't do that. Rashi says it's not like that. So he says like this: אלא כי דראבא, כלומר that the teirutz of the Gemara is, לא יסור זכות שלא בפניו גדולה, that from this פסוק נשיא, not only do we learn out זכין לאדם שלא בפניו, but even with an extra kvetch, that even if it's a חוב הבא מכח זכות is also zechiyah. So Rashi remains that the bottom line is that this is zechut. מטעם שליחות? No, and that's a problem! Rashi learns zechiyah is מטעם שליחות. Mimela, what comes out? That just like a katan can't make a shaliach, you cannot be zocheh for a katan. So Mimela we have to learn pshat in the Gemara here that the Gemara at the end says that this teaches you the din of it's a special din of אפוטרופוס, and the Gemara changes that it's not the din of zechiyah, because if it would be the din of zechiyah, it wouldn't work. So Rashi who learns zechiyah is מטעם שליחות, how does Rashi learn that the מסקנא All the Gemara remains with zechiyah. Rashi has to learn like the Ran. And it seems from here that Rashi learns that even though we know clearly Rashi learns זכיה מטעם שליחות, Rashi seems to learn that a katan could you could be zocheh for a katan, whenever it's a katan. And a ראיה Rashi learns like that, which makes the kashya even stronger, go back to the Gemara in Bava Metzia, Rashi is not gores the word מדרבנן. According to Rashi it says there that a קטן אין לו שליחות ויש לו זכיה מדאורייתא. And it doesn't say מדרבנן. We said that if you hold זכיה מטעם שליחות then you couldn't have a katan, couldn't have zechiyah, ela mai? Rabbanan made, so you have to get it מדרבנן. Who is not גורס the word מדרבנן? The one that holds בכלל זכיה is not מטעם שליחות, so he says מדאורייתא it's shlichus, not זכיה yet. Rashi holds שליחות, זכיה מטעם שליחות and he's not גורס the word מדרבנן. The Ritva says clearly Rashi לא גריס מדרבנן. So there is something here we got to say, and there's another point here: If you hold זכיה מטעם שליחות normally, then you don't need a pasuk to learn out the din of זכיה. Where does the din of זכיה come from? From a sevara. If you hold shlichus, it means it's a sevara. Just like you can make a shaliach, so something which is good we assume for sure you make him a shaliach, you don't need a pasuk. The one that holds זכיה is not מטעם שליחות, so where do we get the זכיה from? You have to have a pasuk. This is the pasuk! They learn the פסוק נשיא teaches you. But according to the one that heard זכיה is not זכיה is מטעם שליחות, you don't need a pasuk. Now Rashi, who says זכיה is מטעם שליחות because אנן סהדי that he does, and Rashi says that from this pasuk we learn out זכיה. What does he need a pasuk for? So we got a problem with Rashi. Rashi שיטה is eppes a is eppes a mixed-up שיטה, it's it's nisht ahin un nisht aher. Because like this it's very clear, mesudar. If you hold זכיה מטעם שליחות, a katan can't, and you don't need a pasuk. If you hold zechiyah not מטעם שליחות, a katan could, and and and you and you need a pasuk. Rashi is both: Rashi is זכיה מטעם שליחות and needs this. So we have to go into this whole inyan of zechiyah and this. So

let's go to a different Gemara. The Gemara in Bava Metzia has a din like this: התופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים, what happens if a person owes owes a few people money and he only has enough to pay one? So what happens if one of the the the creditors come and grab it? He has $100, he owes each 100, grab it. Fine, you got it, you got it. What happens if someone else comes and grabs it? For one guy, yeah, not not one of these guys, someone else, a friend of his, a friend of one of the guys comes and grabs it. Not a creditor. Not a creditor. So he's a תופס לבעל חוב, he's grabbing for a חוב, במקום שחב לאחרים, but he's ruining for the others, like this the other guys had a chance, but he's So if the owner himself comes, he could do it. But someone else came to grab for him? But no, he's doing it for somebody who he owes money. Ah, he's doing it for some Yeah yeah, not himself, he's doing it ל לבעל חוב. One second, that's what we're going to get to. The din is לא קנה. Doesn't work. Not קונה. Zogt Rashi, since the בעל חוב didn't make him into a shaliach, didn't make him a shaliach, so it doesn't work. Zogt Tosafot, comes out from Rashi that if he would make him into a shaliach, it would work. Come fregt Tosafot, in Bava Metzia one kashya and in Gittin Tosafot another kashya. In Metzia, Tosafot has a kashya from a Gemara that I'll show you a Gemara where it said that even if you made him into a shaliach, it still doesn't work. The Gemara says, מעשה there was a guy called Imar bar Chashu and somebody owed a few he someone owed him money and a few more people that that guy owed, so he sent somebody, this guy had a ship, go grab the ship and bring it. So he went and brought it to him. He sent him to bring it. אמרו חכמים לא קנה. לא קנה because he's תופס לבעל חוב במקום שחב לאחרים. Ah, you made him into a shaliach? So he says to Rashi, you see you're wrong. So on this kashya the mefarshim answer. It's different teirutzim, but one of the teirutzim is that it doesn't say sent him to be קונה for him, sent to bring it. I sent a shaliach that that you should be קונה is one thing, but to bring it? So as long as he didn't bring it, he's not קונה. Okay, whatever. The עיקר קשיא there Tosafos in Gittin has another kashya. No, it never got to the guy. Then probably yeah. Comes then Tosafos has another kashya, which is noge'a to our inyan here. Tosafos says to Rashi like this: You, Rashi, are making a difference if he grabbed by himself without him making a shaliach, it doesn't work, but if the guy made him a shaliach, it works. If he grabbed it by himself, you're zocheh for him. זכיה מטעם שליחות, he tells Rashi. So what does it mean זכיה מטעם שליחות? That the guy who is zocheh for you is as if he's your shaliach. So what's the difference if you made him a shaliach or not? How could, he says to Rashi, how could you say that if the בעל חוב would have told him please go and get for me, it's good, it's good, he didn't tell him, but you got it for him on yourself, on what basis did you get it? ...it for him, because you're zocheh for him. No, because he told you though. No, no, no, not a regular case, no, no. Not a case if a giant came and grabbed the money. Well the case that there is two different cases, שיור and אין שיור. What are the difference? The difference is that at that שעה both parties are together. Who's the One is giving, Yeah. and the other one is taking. Yeah. Here, the guy never gave it to him, he just grabbed it. Yeah, but the guy with Check always check always circumstances. Yeah, but but that makes a difference, because I didn't care. First of all, he's losing his money. Yeah, yeah, you know what, what does he care who gets? He's not a בעל חוב, he's the one who owes. Yeah, he doesn't care. He owes five guys, he has Whoever it is, he's going to lose it, and that's all. Right. Yeah, that money isn't going to go to. But according No, he's saying according to Rashi a regular case, not the case of the שיור, a regular case if a guy goes and grabs for somebody else, doesn't work. But if the and if the guy made him a shaliach, it does work. So he says, if the guy grabs for him without being a shaliach, he's zocheh for him. So what is he, a shaliach? Because doesn't the Shach, the Shach holds זכיה מטעם שליחות. He's a shaliach. So what's the chiluk if he made him a שליח or didn't make him a שליח? So therefore Tosafos argues, and Tosafos says it doesn't work either. If you make a שליח it doesn't work. Tosafos argues. Why not? Why? Why not? Because he said he says since it didn't work by זכיה, it shouldn't work by שליחות. Yeah, no, he says, so it's similar that this whole thing that you're חב לאחרינא, the fact that you're doing it while you're hurting somebody else doesn't work. Or you can say that Rashi holds שליחות and and זכיה have a little bit of a difference. Obviously. You see what You see where we're getting to, you see where we're getting to. Is it because also who's קונה? Because the שליח is קונה, but the guy who's just Lawyers. Lawyers. He's not קונה. Yeah. You could say that? Is there a difference? I don't I don't know the Because the שליח, you make the guy you make him a שליח, Yeah. he's קונה. As soon as he grabs it, he he's making a קנין for the Yeah, but זכיה is the same way. Oh, I thought they had to wait until until I still like by the שעה. No, he gets it. No, no, זכיה, you get it right away. Even if he's not made a שליח, he's still קונה, once Come on. I know, I know. You know what? Definitely have. So according to Tosafos, makes no difference if you're a שליח or not, it doesn't work. And the sheilah is, why back then doesn't it work, you're asking. The Ketzos asks the sheilah. You tell me it doesn't work because it's חב לאחרינא, even though you're a שליח of his, but you're ruining it for somebody else. Mimela you're a שליח, I can send you as a שליח, good, but if you're sending a שליח and ruining somebody else, Of course. Fregt der Ketzos, well so what? Where do we find that חב לאחרינא is a סתירה to שליחות? You can't be a שליח if you're hurting somebody else? A mashal, he says, the Gemara says marrying a woman is called חב לאחרינא. It's called hurting, because you take her from the whole world. Giving a גט is called חב לאחרינא. Why? Because you're אסר to a כהן. The Gemara says that if you send somebody a shaliach to steal, who's חייב? The shaliach. The shaliach. Because it's אי שליח, the Gemara says why? Because דברי אין שליח לדבר עבירה. Why? Because דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד, דברי מי שומעין? Why do we have to give that reason? Give a pshuteh reason, חב לאחרינא! If if if being hurting somebody else is a סתירה that you can't be a shaliach, say that! Similar that, not, if I make a shaliach and shlichut works, it's חב לאחרינא, so what's the פשט? So let's go into this, that's that's that's אריכות. בכלל, where is דאקא the מחלוקת of Rashi and Tosafot over there by תופס לבעל חוב whether you can make a shaliach or not? So, בכלל some people want to think actually in in in the ישיבות, the ליובאוויטשער ישיבות, they always taught to learn that this depends on the two sides of how we learn the דין of shlichut. So we know, because the Rebbe gekocht in this always in shlichut, made the three ways of shlichut, mainly it's two ways, a middle way, but let's go to two ways. One is that the shaliach is mamash the משלח, and one is that the shaliach, even though he's not the משלח ממש, but whatever he does helps the משלח. The Torah is מחדש a חידוש that even though you're supposed to give the קידושין, if you make a shaliach, if he gives, it works for you. The first way is, no, it works for you because Reuven makes Shimon the shaliach, Shimon becomes Reuven. A chidush that Torah makes שמעון ראובן, כמותו. So now when Shimon For for this inyan of the marriage, only for this. Yeah, שלוחו של אדם כמותו doesn't mean if if the meshaleach is a talmid chacham, you become a talmid chacham. I wish it worked like that. But, for the whole time he's not It's only in the kiddushin this you become כמותו. The other ways, no. You're Shimon is שמעון, עס איז דער זעלבער גראבער יונג, It's everything, but the Torah is mechadesh that since he appointed you as a shaliach, what you did, it works. Many nafka minas. I'll get to the second half there's afternoon and we'll see. So someone, some acharon could say that Rashi Tosafos learns שלוחו של אדם כמותו ממש. No, I mean Rashi. Rashi learns כמותו ממש, and therefore if you grab yourself, the baal chov himself grab would be good. So if you send a shaliach, is mamash like you. And Tosafos learns it's not כמותו ממש, ובמילא if you send the shaliach, still doesn't work. But that's very hard to hear this, because nafka mina if כמותו ממש or not, the Torah said there is shlichus. So if if if shlichus works, so like just like when you have to give a kiddushin and you send a shaliach, איי he's not כמותו ממש according to that vort and it works. So why shouldn't it work here? It's hard to say. I would say a different vort, a different, a deeper vort. There's

another chakirah, we spoke about that last week or two weeks ago, another chakirah which is a a totzaah, which is a result of this chakirah: whether shlichus is a פעולה נמשכת or not. When you make someone a shaliach, let's say now, that in two weeks from now, this and this day, you'll go מקדש this woman for me. Is the pshat I once make him into a shaliach and that's it? Now that he's a shaliach, later on he is going to מקדש the woman, but the the מינוי השליחות, the appointment of the shaliach, is a one-time thing? Or you could say no: every second, it renews itself, till the second when you give do the פעולה that you're doing, \"I make you a shaliach\", and then it stops. I just made you now. And it's as if you're making again, and you're making again, and you're making again, and then at the end, when it comes to actually doing, then you then he is making you the last time a shaliach, and then you can do it. This, whether it's like, why bichlal we should say פעולה נמשכת is because bichlal bichlal, Der Rebbe says in many places, anytime you have to accomplish something סתירה, has to be פעולה נמשכת. If you want to accomplish something that's against nature, you have to constantly There's a cup of water, right? The water has to hold, the walls have to hold it up the whole time. Why? Because the nature of water is to fall. In Tanya, he says when it came to Kriat Yam Suf, that the Aibershter had to make the Why? Why if it's So, the Alter Rebbe says because it's yesh me'ayin or whatever, בריאת העולם is המחדש בטובו בכל יום תמיד. So, anything that you're accomplishing something which is against nature, against normal, has to be Like shlichut! I'm supposed to do it, and you're doing it for me. A meshuga! What kind of a zach? Ela mai? The Torah said that it can happen, but it's against, now, almost so it's a פעולה נמשכת. Lichora, this chakirah is dependent on the previous chakirah. If you hold כמותו ממש, and he becomes him, it's a one-time thing. You make him the shaliach, now Shimon becomes Reuven. Now, there's no problem, how could Reuven do it? He's Shimon. Because he's because he's yeah, he's he's Shimon now. If you hold he doesn't become him, so what happens here is, how can he do it? So then, it's it's not 100% מוכרח, you could learn not after, but it seems like, what's the pshat? Because every second, you're it's מתחדש. So when it comes to the last second, you're making him a shaliach at the last second. Ke'ilu you're making him a shaliach, and that works. Here, the nafka mina would be, the

famous machloket between the Rambam and Tur, if a person sends a shaliach to give a get to his wife, and before he gave the get, the משלח became nuts, became crazy. Can he give the get or not? So if you hold that it's a one-time thing, when he made him a shaliach, he was normal. Now, Shimon became Reuven! So let Shimon give the get. If you hold it, it has to continue, so what When you're able when you give the get or whatever, when is he making you a shaliach that the The last the last second he can't make you a shaliach because he's nuts! So here is the נפקא Why did you tell us by פעולה נמשכת by a shofar, למשל, oder The mitzvah of shofar, he is Is it constant, or is it So we had an inyan that this whole chiyuv is before. It's to be before you heard, it's before. Also, if he changed his mind, it also comes to No, if he changed his mind always works, whichever way, because you could take it back. You make Reuven makes Shimon a shaliach, but if you come If you change If you change your mind and you come and stop him, pashut that you could mevatel it. You don't stop. You don't stop. And you change your mind there, how did you do How did you change your mind? What did you do? Derabbanan works. Midrabbanan, no, midoraita, if you make a beit din right here, it's mevatel, yes. Rabbanan said you shouldn't do that, you have to go catch the shaliach, or go to the wife. Anyway. What about when he is a shaliach only when he does the maaseh, and the whole time before that, you just So how is he a shaliach the last minute? That's what you're saying, which Isn't that the the other not like the second one or something, the middle the middle ground? It could be, but the מעשה שליחות. Is there such a thing? Yeah, yeah, that But that's like saying it's the same thing. No, it doesn't. How so, Reuven? The middle one is that the First, we are not going to go into the middle because it's it's to either side. The the first one is that Shimon becomes Reuven. And the last way is that Shimon is not Reuven at all, and what who did the פעולה? Shimon did, not Reuven. But the Torah says even though Shimon did it, it works. The middle one is, Shimon didn't become Reuven, but what he did is כאילו שמעון, the Torah says, it's מיוחס כאילו ראובן did it. But at the time at the time he did it, he wasn't Right, right. until then. So that would be depend whether it works, which side it works closer to. Okay, so we have these two ways here. Now, what are the differences between these two ways, besides the נפקא מינה we just said, is, if you hold שליחות is not a פעולה נמשכת, then there's a big difference between שליחות and זכיה. Even though you'll say זכיה מטעם שליחות, but it's a big difference, why? By שליחות, when does the concept of שליחות take place? When he makes him into a שליח. It could be two weeks before the פעולה, before he does. When does the שליחות of זכיה take place? That No, the second. The second that he is doing it! Before that, there was nothing happening. If you hold שליחות is a פעולה נמשכת, they're both the same. When is taking place the שליחות by זכיה? That was that second. When is it taking place the the שליחות by שליחות? Also that second. The fact that he made two weeks ago is not that, it's now what's happening. That is פעולה נמשכת. And that, I would like to say, is the machloket between Rashi and Tosafot. Wow. Good. Tosafot says, שליחות is not is a is a פעולה נמשכת. So according to Tosafot, Tosafot says, how are you מחלק... So Tosafot asks Rashi, you're saying like this, if the guy sent him as a שליח, it works. If the guy didn't send him as a שליח, it doesn't work. So Tosafot asks, if you didn't send him as a שליח, it's a שליח anyway, because it's זכיה, זכיה מטעם שליחות. Because Tosafot learns that זכיה and שליחות are the same thing. שליחות takes Tosafot learns it's a פעולה נמשכת. Why? Because he doesn't come כמותו ממש. If it's a פעולה נמשכת, when does the שליחות take place in a regular between Reuven and Shimon? The second he's doing it. When does the זכיה take place? The shlichus is the second. משא\"כ according to Rashi, Rashi learns that זכיה that shlichus is not a פעולה נמשכת. So according to Rashi, there's a there's a big difference between shlichus and זכיה. Because shlichus the shlichus takes place before, זכיה takes place... And therefore, this is this is the punch line of the of the machloket there. When he makes him into a shaliach, the חב לאחרינא doesn't come into play. He says to him, \"Go grab the money for me.\" Ah, we know he's going to hurt the other guy, but now there is nothing, no מציאות, nothing practical of hurting the other guy. That happens when he grabs it. So Rashi says like this: If you make him into a shaliach, so now you become a What do you become? We said if you learn it's not a פעולה נמשכת, it's כמותו ממש. Shimon became Reuven. If Reuven would come and grab, would there be a problem of חב לאחרינא? No. So, when Shimon grabs, the same thing! משא\"כ by זכיה, Rashi says it's different. If you grab without shlichus, when does the shlichus start? It's זכיה מטעם שליחות. When does it start? At the minute. When he's grabbing. When he's grabbing, it's חב לאחרינא. When does the חב לאחרינא the the fact that you're hurting somebody come into play? When you're grabbing, you're taking away from the other guy. But if you're make a shli... But when you make a shli... Ah! Cuz he's not כמותו. No, but he could be כמותו at that moment, but לפועל ממש you can't be כמותו if it's a סתירה to to חב לאחרינא. If חב לאחרינא is against, it doesn't work. But in the case of regular shlichus, you made him into a shaliach where there is no חב לאחרינא. There, ידיעה, you know, I know he owes more guys and if I'll take it, I'll grab it. But now what did I have nothing to do with them, I'm making you I'm making you like me, finished. And now that you're like me, חב לאחרינא doesn't doesn't bother. The intention doesn't count? He could be grabbing money that is owed to you, he's not חב לאחרינא intentional. He does, though, he's going to be חב לאחרינא. That doesn't matter, he knows. חב לאחרינא itself we'll see in a second is not a problem. It's if you're becoming a שליח at the time of חב לאחרינא. חב לאחרינא is a סתירה to becoming a שליח. So by זכיה if you're grabbing, and it's only זכיה, you're becoming a שליח when you're grabbing, so you're becoming a שליח בשעת חב לאחרינא. משא\"כ the regular שליחות, you're becoming a שליח before, and it's no problem of חב לאחרינא. משא\"כ according to Tosafos, Tosafos learns that the דין of uh that it's not a it's a פעולה נמשכת. So Tosafos, וואס זאגסטו מיר? You're telling me that it's a שליחות works, and if it's not a שליח it doesn't work, what's the difference? שליחות also happens at the same time. Just like you're telling me זכיה doesn't work because it's a when you become a שליח, that second it's חב לאחרינא, the regular שליחות also when are you becoming a שליח that makes it work, בשעת מעשה? Cuz it's פעולה נמשכת, it's that second. So they're both exactly the same thing. So they so it shouldn't work either. And Tosafos says it doesn't work. איי, we have a קשיא from all these places where we see that זכיה does that uh שליחות is no problem with חב לאחרינא, it's not the same. When is חב לאחרינא no problem? Let's say by the case of קידושין. What's the What's the חב לאחרינא? He's giving her קידושין, and ממילא other people can't marry her. How are the other people connected here? The חב לאחרינא is a is What, they're they're partners here? They're... אה, it's a it's not like you're pushing anybody, right? He answers, he doesn't have No, that's not The Gemara calls it חב לאחרינא, it's a חב לאחרינא, but you can't say that's a סתירה to to what I'm to my shlichus. First of all, good, kiddushin, if a kohen will ever want to marry her, go, maybe this whole case would happen. How does It's not a real חב לאחרינא. People say you got a whole case. Yeah, exactly, so that's not. When is חב לאחרינא a סתירה? If בשעת מעשה you are חב to somebody else. As in by money. איי, the other case where we ask, בשעה you make a shaliach to steal, why do we need a reason why it doesn't work cuz דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד, why don't we say it doesn't work, it's חב לאחרינא? Because here you made him a shaliach to חב לאחרינא, that's another part. When you make a shaliach hurt somebody, if not for the din of אין שליח לדבר עבירה, you need there is shlichus. We're talking a case where you made a shaliach to grab. You're not making a shaliach to hurt. So finally you are בשעת מעשה hurting, that's where it's a problem. So whether it's a case where the the the חב לאחרינא is outside thing, so that's no problem, or the חב לאחרינא is what your shlichus is, no problem. But if the חב לאחרינא you're making a shaliach to one thing, and the חב לאחרינא at the same time is happening, but that's not part of your shlichus, that doesn't work. I'll tell you in the truth, because if you're hurting somebody else, you have to be shaliach of that guy. You're doing something for him at the moment. Anyway, whatever it is, so that's no ראיה. So we understand the difference in the Rashi places. Now that we just just to finish it, now that we understand it I can hold like this. Rashi לערב at the din of shlichus, it's כמותו ממש and it's חולק משרת. So it's So it's different than zechiyah. According to Tosefos, that zechiyah and shlichus are ממש, it's the exact same thing. Rashi learns זכיה מטעם שליחות. But the problem is that zechiyah is a is a din of shlichus that happens בשעת מעשה without any previous thing. Every shlichus when there's a regular shlichus, there's a previous מינוי. You appointed him before. Whether it's a day before, an hour before, but before. זכיה, there's nothing that happened before, only בשעת מעשה. According to Tosafos, by every shlichus, it's like that. Every shlichus What happened before doesn't count. What happened before is only that's why it's happening now. So So Rashi says, ein hachi nami, I agree זכיה מטעם שליחות. But it's a it's a different type of shlichus. It's a new kind of shlichus. It's a shlichus It's a זכיה is a is a shaliach, but a shaliach without any prior involvement. And for that, he says we need a pasuk. And since we need a pasuk, the פסוק תקי teaches you that this is a דין of shlichus. It's It's כמותו. It's a דין of shlichus, but then since it's a chiddush in the pasuk, so m'meila who says a קטן can't do it? Just like the Torah is mechadesh a new type of shlichus, so that shows like this. So how is זכיה מטעם שליחות? It's because of shlichus, because if you wouldn't have the sevara of shlichus to begin with, we'd never say that the pasuk comes to tell you it's זכיה. The only reason we could say the Torah means זכיה, because I there's a דין שליחות. So זכיה is an an a result and an extension of shlichus, but in which way? A new type of shlichus. A new type of shlichus you need a pasuk. The קשיא was, if you hold זכיה מטעם שליחות, why do we need the Why does Rashi hold you need a pasuk? Because this according to Rashi we learn זכיה מטעם according to Tosafot He's telling him בפסוקים, it's a simple thing. Zechiyah and shlichut are the same thing. That's it. But according to Rashi, zechiyah is a different type of shlichut. So you need a pasuk. And the moment you need a pasuk for it, so the pasuk tells you a chidush of a new type of shlichut. So memeila, קטנים also. So that's why Rashi here doesn't learn like the Ran. Rashi said by every side learn זכיה מטעם שליחות, but the Ran says if zechiyah is מטעם שליחות then קטנים shouldn't be able to and memeila, we learn the Gemara The end is not This case is not zechiyah. Rashi says no, zechiyah is talking about shlichut, but it's a din with קטנים, work. And that's why the Gemara in Bava Metzia Rashi says שליחות אין לקטן. It's a derabbanan. Zechiyah is a miderabbanan, because Rashi holds mide'oraita, it works. איי זכיה is מטעם שליחות? זכיה מטעם שליחות means that if we wouldn't have this concept that he wants to make him a shaliach, we would've never darshen the pasuk this way. If he wouldn't have the din of shlichut, he wouldn't darshen. We have שליחות and we have a sevara that's made it. But on our own, just with the sevara itself, we couldn't never get to it. We have to have the sevara. Now, we can identify a pasuk. But the moment it gives the pasuk gives us, so the pasuk tells us a chidush that why to קטנים? And I'll explain you in just one more word. Last week we explained why תקי normally can't a קטן make a שליח? What's the reason? Why can't the קטן make a שליח? As I said because he has no What's a קטן has no daat? Who cares? So I explained the peshat can be you can't be batel. You can a person A שליח has to be batel to the משלח. A גדול cannot be batel to a קטן. There's no such thing. Because the whole concept of שליחות is ביטול. The moment we have this type of שליחות where it's a שליחות a chidush'dike type of שליחות the Torah is מחדש here that you don't have to be up you have to be batel. And you know why you're batel? Because why can't Why can't a קטן also have זכיה, you can be זוכה. So לפי זה, it'll come out that we have three שיטות. We have Tosafos שיטה זכיה מטעם שליחות, regular, and the Ran, and therefore, a קטן קטנים can't be. You have the Ramban, the Rashba, the Ritva, they hold זכיה is not מטעם שליחות, and they hold Not all, but the Ramban the Ran, the Ritva and the Rashba hold that קטנים תקי could be. And Rashi will be like in the middle. He holds zechiyah is מטעם שליחות, but the case is that קטנים could be. It's by the way that the Ramban holds zechiyah not מטעם שליחות, and he holds קטנים can't be for different reasons. That's by the way. But that's a different different other reason. But Rashi will hold זכיה מטעם שליחות, and the chiddush is אף על פי כן קטנים could be. Ume-meila, this Gemara stays that it's שליחות, that the case is zechiyah, and it's קטן works, and Rashi says we learn out from here the din of zechiyah, even though Rashi holds here Rashi, it's always שליח כמותו. כמותו ממש, yeah. How come How about if he doesn't like it when he accepts it? Still? Huh? Yes. He could have charatah. He could have charatah. You could What I mean to say is, it's still Is it still an עבודה שליח for שליחות? In other words, it's It's not. Why? Because it's like a hezek It's It's like hurting somebody. You can't buy a car for somebody who says they have It's the whole thing. חולק ומשרת so many miles. It doesn't change One second. One second. It doesn't change the the essence חולק ומשרת is a defined issue, what the essence, the the idea of whether שליח של אדם כמותו has nothing to do with it being fine. Oh, I just said. That's an extension that chakirah, you could say this, but I said it's not muchrach. You could kvetsh and say it otherwise. Right, but if it's mistaber that if you made him into a כמעשהו ממש, that's it, now he's listen, now you don't need anything more. Now for this inyan he became like you, so why do you have to continue? But if he didn't become like you, you know what's happening? So it's constantly a setirah. He's not you, and he's going to do something and it'll work for you. Right. So that has to constantly be renewed. But at the end it's almost like the last second, that final jump-off. When is the last second? When you're doing it. When you're doing it, but it's still not changing whether it's כמוהו or or I'm saying if it's כמעשהו ממש, you don't need it to come up the best. What? But how can it happen? Of course. But if it's not כמעשהו, then it makes sense more that it should be כולו משלחת, because you're not כמעשהו, so we're left with a stira. When do you need פועל משלח? When there's a stira. There's a stira here. If he's כמעשהו ממש, the stira was resolved. He's you, now there's no more stira. Right. Because the Torah is telling you Reuven now is Shimon, fine, Reuven is Shimon, so we have no problem, but the Torah says, no, Reuven is not Shimon, and still it will work. Right, got it. So you need constant... So then you need that, so פועל משלח has constantly to continue, it's constantly... The middle one can go to either side. So I learned this somewhere in another sicha of the Rebbe. Sounds like a Yeah, but it sounds like a convenience type of a din. It is. It was a convenience thing. His explanation to Bachman, that his wife's a Bachman din. By the way, we missed the basketball game tonight, Was it worth a basketball What to worry about. The שולח... The shaliach becomes it. The shaliach becomes it.